alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert EDD, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12483.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 9, 1957.

As Corrected Oct. 30, 1957.

Wendell G. Stockton, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

James W. Berry, County Atty., Ryland F. Keys, Asst. County Atty., Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

NIX, Judge.

The plaintiff in error was charged in the Court of Common Pleas of Oklahoma County, by information, with the crime, of illegal possession of intoxicating liquor, found guilty and his punishment fixed at 45 days in the county jail and to pay a fine in the amount of $100.00.

The petition in error lodging this appeal was filed in this court on the 29th day of April, 1957. There has never been filed in said cause a brief in support of defendant’s contention. This case was set for oral argument on the 26th day of June. No one appeared in defendant’s behalf.

This court has consistently held in favor of the rule laid down in Hulsey v. State, 82 Okl.Cr. 332, 169 P.2d 771:

> “Where the defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and no briefs are filed, nor argument presented, this court will examine the evidence and ascertain if it supports the verdict, and will make an examination of the information, instructions excepted to, and the judgment, and if no material error is apparent, the judgment will be affirmed.”

Dodge v. State, 78 Okl.Cr. 100, 144 P.2d 124; Epps v. State, 69 Okl.Cr. 460, 104 P.2d 262; Hiett v. State, 75 Okl.Cr. 190, 129 P.2d 866.

This court has gone further as to say in Barefield v. State, 26 Okl.Cr. 274, 223 P. 408:

> “The time for filing a brief supporting the appeal has passed, and, no brief having been filed, it may be assumed that the appeal has been abandoned. The cause has 'been regularly submitted on the record, which has been examined, disclosing no errors.”

*876. This court cannot feel that counsel for the defendant is sincere in his contention of error when he does not see fit to file á brief or appear and present argument in support thereof. This court has examined the information, instructions, and the judgment and, in absence of material error, said case is affirmed.

BRETT, P. J., and POWELL, J., concur.
VETERINARY SERVICES MEMORANDUM NO. 800.95

TO: Veterinary Services Leadership Team

Directors, Center for Veterinary Biologics

Biologics Licensees, Permittees, and Applicants

FROM: John R. Clifford /s/ Jack Shere September 2, 2015

Deputy Administrator

SUBJECT: GB Texas Newcastle Disease Challenge Virus

I. PURPOSE

This memorandum informs all interested parties of a change in the status of the GB Texas 

Newcastle disease challenge virus, and the effect of this change on licensees, permittees, 

and applicants currently using or planning to obtain this strain of Newcastle disease virus 

(NDV) for any purpose.

II. CANCELLATION

This memorandum cancels Veterinary Services Memorandum No. 800.95 dated June 25, 

2008.

III. BACKGROUND

The GB Texas strain of NDV is a neurotropic, velogenic virus commonly used as a 

challenge virus in efficacy and potency testing of Newcastle disease vaccines, and in 

research. Since 1996, this NDV strain was subject to regulation under title 9, Code of 

Federal Regulations part 82 (9 CFR 82) as an Exotic Newcastle Disease strain, but could 

be obtained by holders of a valid United States Veterinary Permit for Importation and 

Transportation of Controlled Materials and Organisms and Vectors issued by Veterinary 

Services, National Import Export Services . A Final Rule published March 18, 2005, has 

since clarified that all strains of velogenic NDV would be regulated as select agents and 

subject to the requirements of the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002 and 

9 CFR 121: Possession, Use, and Transfer of Biological Agents and Toxins. The GB 

Texas strain of NDV may be obtained from the National Veterinary Services 

Laboratories, effective the date of this notice.

Animal and Plant

Health Inspection

Service

Veterinary Services

1400 Independence 

Ave, SW

Washington, DC

20250

Safeguarding American Agriculture

Federal Relay Service

APHIS is an agency of USDA’s Marketing and Regulatory Programs (Voice/TTY/ASCII/Spanish)

 An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer 1-800-877-8339

 

 
VETERINARY SERVICES MEMORANDUM NO. 800.95

Page 2

IV. ACTION

As a result of the clarification of the status of this NDV strain as a select agent, entities interested 

in obtaining, maintaining, using, or transferring the GB Texas strain of NDV must now register 

with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and meet the requirements set forth in 

9 CFR, part 121. Information concerning the select agent registration process and the regulations 

in 9 CFR, part 121 may be obtained from the Agricultural Select Agent Program by telephone at 

(301) 851-3300 (select option 3) or through the Agriculture Select Agent Services web site. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION

This action is effective immediately.
**USA COMMENTS IN RED FONT**

Chapter 1.2. CRITERIA FOR LISTING AQUATIC ANIMAL DISEASES, Article 1.2.2.

CHAPTER 1.2.

**CRITERIA FOR LISTING AQUATIC ANIMAL DISEASES**

Article 1.2.1.

**Introduction**

This chapter describes the criteria for the inclusion of *diseases* in Chapter 1.3.

The objective of listing *diseases* is to support Member Countries by providing information needed to take appropriate action to prevent the transboundary spread of important *diseases* of *aquatic animals*. This is achieved by transparent, timely and consistent *notification*.

Each *listed disease* usually has a corresponding chapter that assists Member Countries in the harmonisation of *disease* detection, prevention and control, and provides standards for safe *international trade* in *aquatic animals* and *aquatic animal products*.

The requirements for *notification* are detailed in Chapter 1.1.

Principles and methods of validation of diagnostic tests are described in Chapter 1.1.2. of the *Aquatic Manual*.

Article 1.2.2.

The criteria for the inclusion of a *disease* in the OIE list are as follows:

1. International spread of the *pathogenic agent* (via *aquatic animals*, *aquatic animal products*, *vectors* or fomites) is likely.

AND

2. At least one country ~~may demonstrate~~has demonstrated country or *zone* freedom from the *disease* in susceptible *aquatic animals*, based on provisions of Chapter 1.4.

**RATIONALE:**Changing to “has demonstrated” makes the statement something that must happen rather than something that may or may not happen. It is also the phrase used in the Terrestrial Code Chapter 1.2. Article 1.2.2.2. This discrepancy between the Aquatic and Terrestrial Animal Health Codes significantly impacts the listing of aquatic animal diseases. 

AND

3. A precise *case definition* is available and a reliable means of detection and *diagnosis* exists.

AND

4. 

a. Natural transmission to humans has been proven, and human infection is associated with severe consequences.

OR

b. The *disease* has been shown to affect the health of cultured *aquatic animals* at the level of a country or a *zone* resulting in significant consequences e.g. production losses, morbidity or mortality at a *zone* or country level.

OR

c. The *disease* has been shown to, or scientific evidence indicates that it would affect the health of wild resulting in significant consequences e.g. morbidity or mortality at a population level, reduced productivity or ecological impacts.
Exhibit 23.01

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of DirectorsWilliams Controls, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-42232, 333-43006, 333-59397, and 333-90565, on Form S-3 and No. 333-56591 on Form S-8) of Williams Controls, Inc. of our report dated December 12, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Williams Controls, Inc. as of September 30, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity (deficit), cash flows, and comprehensive income (loss) for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2006, which report appears in the September 30, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of Williams Controls, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP Portland, OregonDecember 12, 2006

---
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-20730 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. CESAR HERNANDEZ LOZANO, also k nown as Cesar Lozano Hernandez, also known as Cesar Hernandez-Lozano, also known as Cesar L. Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CR-343-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Cesar Hernandez Lozano raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. MoralesMota , 70 4 F

. 3 d 410, 412 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 133 S. Ct. 2374 (2013). In Morales-Mota , 704 F.3d at 412, t h i s c o u r t, relying u pon its holding in United States v. Joslin , 487 F. App’x 139, 141-43 ( 5th Cir. 2012), c e rt. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1847 (2013), rejected the argument t hat the T exas offense of “burglary of a U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 20, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-20730 Document: 00512346694 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2013No. 12-20730

habita t i o n” is outside the generic, contemporary definition of “burglary of a dwelling” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because i t defines the “ owner” of a habitation as a p erson with a “greater r ight t o possession.” Acco r d i n g l y , the Government’s motion f or summary affirmance is G RANTED, its al t e r native motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-20730 Document: 00512346694 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2013
#### State v. Buckley.

17295

12/23/96

Affirmed
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1105 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1105

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize per diem payments 
 under comprehensive service programs for homeless veterans to furnish 
    care to dependents of homeless veterans, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 2015

Mr. Heller (for himself and Mrs. Murray) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize per diem payments 
 under comprehensive service programs for homeless veterans to furnish 
    care to dependents of homeless veterans, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF PER DIEM PAYMENTS FOR FURNISHING CARE TO 
              DEPENDENTS OF CERTAIN HOMELESS VETERANS.

    Section 2012(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(4) Services for which a recipient of a grant under section 2011 
of this title (or an entity described in paragraph (1)) may receive per 
diem payments under this subsection may include furnishing care for a 
dependent of a homeless veteran who is under the care of such homeless 
veteran while such homeless veteran receives services from the grant 
recipient (or entity).''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1090 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1090

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 2015

     Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
 Assistance Act to provide eligibility for broadcasting facilities to 
      receive certain disaster assistance, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Information Improvement 
Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF BROADCASTING FACILITIES FOR CERTAIN DISASTER 
              ASSISTANCE.

    (a) Private Nonprofit Facility Defined.--Section 102(11)(B) of the 
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
U.S.C. 5122(11)(B)) is amended by inserting ``broadcasting 
facilities,'' after ``workshops,''.
    (b) Critical Services Defined.--Section 406(a)(3)(B) of the Robert 
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
5172(a)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``communications,'' and inserting 
``communications (including broadcast and telecommunications),''.

            Passed the Senate September 17, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4248 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to repeal certain disclosure 

requirements related to conflict minerals, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2017 

Mr. HUIZENGA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to repeal 

certain disclosure requirements related to conflict minerals, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CONFLICT MINERAL REQUIRE4 MENTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (p) of section 13 of the 

6 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) is here7 by repealed. 

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The Dodd-Frank 

9 Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 

10 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) is amended— 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4248 IH

1 (1) by striking section 1502; and 

2 (2) in the table of contents in section 1(b) of 

3 such Act, by striking the item relating to section 

4 1502. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with BILLS
Order filed, January 09, 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 01043

- CR

____________ TONY MERLOS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 155th District Court

Austin County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. 2011R

- 0105



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due December 09, 2013

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because t he reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Vicki L. Brown , the substitute court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
# C_2021217EN.01000901.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland — United Kingdom) — TKF v Department of Justice for Northern Ireland

(Case C-729/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Temporal scope - Article 75 - Decisions given by a court of a Member State prior to accession to the European Union)

(2021/C 217/11)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TKF

Respondent: Department of Justice for Northern Ireland

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 75(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations must be interpreted as applying only to decisions given by national courts in States which were already members of the European Union on the date of adoption of those decisions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 75(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations must be interpreted as applying only to decisions given by national courts in States which were already members of the European Union on the date of adoption of those decisions.

| 2. | Regulation No 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that no provision of that regulation enables decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations, given in a State before its accession to the European Union and before the date of application of that regulation, to be recognised and enforced, after that State’s accession to the European Union, in another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regulation No 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that no provision of that regulation enables decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations, given in a State before its accession to the European Union and before the date of application of that regulation, to be recognised and enforced, after that State’s accession to the European Union, in another Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.

---
Exhibit 12.1
 NEENAH ENTERPRISES, INC.
NEENAH FOUNDRY COMPANY
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 For the Years Ended September 30,2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Earnings to fixed charges
calculation (1)Income (loss) from continuing
operations before income taxes
    
    $
    (17,173
    )
    
    $
    (22,747
    )
    
    $
    25,006
    
    
    $
    18,504
    
    
    $
    7,495Fixed charges
    
    
    33,344
    
    
    
    32,695
    
    
    
    34,384
    
    
    
    34,392
    
    
    
    34,392$
    16,171
    
    
    $
    9,948
    
    
    $
    59,390
    
    
    $
    52,896
    
    
    $
    41,887Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    32,469
    
    
    $
    31,700
    
    
    $
    33,410
    
    
    $
    33,419
    
    
    $
    33,392Interest portion of rent expense
    
    
    875
    
    
    
    995
    
    
    
    974
    
    
    
    973
    
    
    
    1,000$
    33,344
    
    
    $
    32,695
    
    
    $
    34,384
    
    
    $
    34,392
    
    
    $
    34,392Ratio of earning to fixed charges
    
    
    N/A
    (2)
    
    
    N/A
    (2)
    
    
    1.73
    
    
    
    1.54
    
    
    
    1.22
 
 (1)
    
    For purposes of the computation, the ratio of earnings to fixed charges has been calculated
by dividing (a) income from continuing operations before income taxes plus fixed charges by
(b) fixed charges. Fixed charges are equal to interest expense plus the portion of the rent
expense estimated to represent interest.(2)
    
    Earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges for the years ended September 30, 2008 and
2007 by $17.2 million and $22.7 million, respectively.
<PAGE>   1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Ibis Technology Corporation

                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Ibis Technology Corporation:

     The audits referred to in our report dated February 19, 1998, included the
related financial statement schedule for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 1997, included in the annual report on Form 10-K. The
financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statement schedule
based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 333-1174) on Form S-1, (No. 33-78440) on Form S-3, (No. 333-9237) on Form
S-3, (No. 333-9239) on Form S-8, (No. 33-81452) on Form S-8, and (No. 333-45247)
on Form S-8 of Ibis Technology Corporation of our report dated February 19,
1998, relating to the balance sheets of Ibis Technology Corporation as of
December 31, 1996 and 1997, and the related statements of operations,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ending December 31, 1997, which report appears in the December
31, 1997 annual report on 10-K of Ibis Technology Corporation.


                                                 KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 31, 1998


                                       47